Mischaracterizing Vivek Ramaswamy as a misogynist is overlooking the real issue
Is Vivek Ramaswamy biased against women? I do not believe so.
In a Republican primary debate on Wednesday, Ramaswamy targeted fellow presidential candidate Nikki Haley. Some critics claim that Ramaswamy chose to single Haley out because of her gender.
Political strategist Alencia Johnson stated that his “misogyny is showing.” Ainsley Earhardt labeled his behavior as “sexist.” Chris Christie, who was also on stage, referred to him as a “misogynist.” Haley herself has previously suggested that he has a problem with women.
However, I have not yet seen any evidence that this is true. In fact, I believe that those claiming Ramaswamy was motivated by misogyny are unintentionally being sexist. He criticizes everyone, and they are implying that Haley should be treated differently.
He is not targeting her because she is a woman; he is doing so because she is a competitor – and one who is rising in the polls.
In a particularly confrontational exchange, Ramaswamy accused Haley, who has supported increased American intervention in Ukraine, of not being able to name three provinces at the heart of the conflict.
“Look at the blank expression,” he taunted. “She doesn’t know the names of the provinces.”
Instead of responding with the names, Haley remained silent as Christie stepped in to her defense.
The former New Jersey governor claimed that Ramaswamy was taking a dig at “her basic intelligence, not her positions.”
Sorry, but I disagree with the idea that this was an attack on “basic intelligence.” He was actually challenging her on very specialized intelligence that one would hope she knows.
Christie then brought gender into the issue: “This is a smart, accomplished woman and you should stop insulting her.”
Could you imagine him leaping in to defend a male candidate in the same way — let alone referring to him as a “smart, accomplished man?”
The subtext seems to be that Ramaswamy is targeting Haley because of her gender. And Haley, the former US ambassador to the UN, has previously said as much herself.
In an interview on the “Ruthless” podcast following the third debate, she implied Vivek had an issue with women: “He comes out of the gate, he hits the female chair of the party. He hits the female anchor on the platform and then he hits me. And I’m not saying anything, but he might have a girl problem.”
Ramaswamy responded on X, “Sorry Nikki, having two X chromosomes doesn’t immunize you, Ronna McDaniel or Kristen Welker from criticism.”
He’s right. I’ve yet to see a shred of evidence that Ramaswamy thinks less of Haley because she’s a woman, let alone that he’s attacking her because she’s a woman.
None of this is to say I endorse all the digs and slights he’s flung around on debate stages. Holding a sign reading “NIKKI = CORRUPT” and suggesting Christie go “enjoy a nice meal,” as he did Wednesday, and calling Haley “Dick Cheney in three-inch heels,” as he did in last month’s debate, was all a bit much — and, frankly, just gave fodder to his critics.
But going after him for a supposed “woman problem” is entirely unfair and betrays a subconscious expectation that women should be treated with kid gloves or coddled, even on a presidential debate stage.
As a woman, I find that insulting. And, as a woman in the business of ideas and opinions, I expect to be critiqued just as much as any of my male colleagues..
Women should be criticized just as men are. That’s what equality looks like. Standing silently and allowing a man to defend your status as an “intelligent woman”… not so much.
Anyone running for president should expect to be ruthlessly grilled, regardless of their gender. And any candidate who doesn’t dish out the same treatment for male and female competitors alike is the real misogynist.
